Craig Reynolds v. State
385 S.W.3d 93
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Reynolds was convicted in 1990 of sexual assault of a child and served a five-year sentence, released in 1995.
- He never registered as a sex offender after his release.
- In 2009, Reynolds was charged with failure to comply with sex-offender registration requirements under Chapter 62.
- Texas amended Chapter 62 in 2005 (HB 867), repealing Article 62.11 and creating transitional rules via Article 62.002.
- The 2005 transition clause stated changes apply to persons subject to Chapter 62, including those with reportable convictions before, on, or after the Act’s effective date.
- Harbin and related authorities held the 2005 amendments retroactively applicable to offenders under Chapter 62; Reynolds had not registered prior to 2005, but the court considered his eligibility under the new regime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Reynolds have a duty to register under Chapter 62 after the 2005 amendments? | Reynolds argues no duty because prior law did not require him to register and transition limits exclude him. | State contends amendments apply to Reynolds as a person subject to Chapter 62 and retroactively impose the duty. | Reynolds has a duty to register; evidence supports violation. |
| Is the 2005 amendment retroactive as applied to Reynolds unconstitutional? | Retroactive application would impair a vested right not to register. | Statute is a remedial public-safety measure; retroactive application allowed. | Amendments may be applied retroactively; statute not unconstitutional as applied. |
| Was Reynolds entitled to a defense of mistake of law based on a DPS letter? | Evidence supports mistake of law since he relied on a written DPS document denying duty to register. | Evidence shows Reynolds did not reasonably rely on the letter and laws changed; systemized enforcement undermines the defense. | Some evidence supports the defense’s rejection; the record supports legal sufficiency of denying mistake of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Arce, 297 S.W.3d 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (first registration statute applied to post-1991 convictions; retroactivity considerations)
- Mahaffey v. State, 364 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (ambiguity and extratextual considerations in statutory interpretation)
- Ex parte Harbin, 297 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (repeal of uncodified savings clause; retroactive application of amendments)
- Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (statutory retroactivity and public-safety purpose)
- Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1996) (valid exercise of police power can supersede retroactive concerns)
- Ex parte Schroeter, 958 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (persuasive authority on agency interpretations of law)
- Sierra v. State, 157 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (binding precedent guiding retroactivity conclusions)